Classifying Ontologiesfritz@rodin.wustl.edu (Fritz Lehmann)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 22:07:39 -0800
Comment: List name: SRKB-LIST (do not use email address as name)
Reply-To: <email@example.com (Fritz Lehmann)>
Version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Fritz Lehmann)
To: Multiple recipients of list <srkb-list@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Classifying Ontologies
Dear Roberto Poli:
I was very pleased to get your long and cogent criticism of my list of
concept-systems. I don't know which version you have. I attach my latest
version at the end of this email message.
>The first thing that emerges is that your list is deeply incomplete and
True. There are three possible approaches to this kind of project:
A. VERY CASUAL. Just add the names of new systems to the list from time to
time as they are noted -- publish nothing, but issue the list on email
B. FAIRLY CASUAL. Write the catalogue itself, briefly describing each system
with a note (of up to one page) with some references. Publish by making it
available by email and FTP.
C. SERIOUS. Write a good description of a carefully chosen large set of
systems, explain how they interrelate, organize them according to different
principles and index them thoroughly, to create a useful reference tool and
perhaps a valuable piece of research. Publish it as a book (it might have to
be a thick book).
So far, I have only done A., though my original intention is to do B. I
haven't put much work into it. If I were to undertake C. it would only be
with one or more collaborators, and only with some promise that the book
would actually be published. This would involve the more thoughtful kind of
analysis that you describe.
In the introductory note, I call the list "inclusive" and
"intentionally a grab-bag". "Grab-bag" means that it is a loose assortment
of items, without careful criteria for membership, and in no very important
order. My vague criteria are 1. A system should be potentially useful as a
machine-encoded concept-system for AI and for knowledge base integration. 2.
A system should not be too specialized; one for "manufacturing" is fine, but
not one for a particular manufacturer. In the middle are specialized fields
and I haven't decided where to put the borderline.
If I have any value in this kind of thing, it is my willingness to go
outside the conventional sources, where ever my experience has led. So I am
quite ready to include, take seriously, and exploit: old philosophers,
pasigraphy, library classifications, government thesauri, semantic linguists,
scientific taxonomies, 17th Century Characteristicae Universali, current
industrial and electronic standards, independent unpublished thinkers, the
latest AI "ontologies" etc. No field has a monopoly on useful taxonomic
ideas. I have tried to include genuinely independent thinkers' systems. A
requirement for this wide approach is careful evaluation to eliminate fluff.
I'll respond to you in more detail:
>some days ago I came across your list of ontologies. The idea to collect
>them in a systematic way is very interesting and I would like to react to
>proposal advancing some observations.
>1. For a better understanding of your long list I need classifications.
> The most obvious seems to use a kind of subdivisions into 'professional'
>fields. In so doing we can distinguish ontologies coming from the
>philosophical tradition, from the A.I. community, etc.
As you may guess from my last remark above, I am against relying on
conventional classifications of sources according to academic disciplines or
professional fields. I much prefer your later ideas of classifying according
to inherent features, or structural aspects. Actually, in a serious work,
the systems should be classified several different ways according to several
>Let's take the first group: ontologies coming from philosophy.
>To say only one thing, there is no mention of medioeval
I considered Duns Scotus and Ockham but left them out. I want to avoid
tilting the list in the direction of historical curiosities. I would rather
tilt more toward currently available, machine-readable computer
implementations, if anything. The only real exception on the list is Ramon
Llull, whom I included since he originated the combinatorial approach; I
don't honestly think he will be much use to AI except indirectly, but he is
due the honor. Aristotle's "categorical accidents" theory, in contrast, has
direct and obvious current relevance and potential usefulness.
>If you are interested in collecting a number of old
>ontologies besides the 'classical' ones, it could be the case to have a
>look at Trendelenburg's *Geschichte der Kategorienlehre* (1846).
Unfortunately, like many ignorant Americans, I speak only English. But
I will still try to take a look at this. Maybe it exists in English
translation somewhere. I'm not "interested in collecting a number of old
ontologies" unless they have the promise of modern practical application in
AI, simulation, and knowledge base integration.
>Some important names (after Trendelenburg's treatise) missed from your
>list are Franz Brentano, Nicolai Hartmann, Gustav Bergmann, Tadeusz
>Kotarbinski, Leon Chwistek, Hector Neri Castaneda. Among the still living
>philosophers, I must quote at least Chisholm, Grossmann, Cocchiarella,
>Johansson, Perzanowski, Armstrong, Petitot, Sommers, Wolniewicz. In any
>case, even this list is deeply unsatisfactory because there are many other
>thinkers that should be considered.
I haven't heard of most of these people and I am grateful to you for
bringing them to my attention, especially if they fit my criteria mentioned
above. Among these names the only one I considered and left out was
Brentano. I don't know much about him. And this is not a survey of
philosophy. The question I asked myself was, did Brentano create:
- an _architectonic_ and rich ontological system (taxonomy)
- which is not available better in later works derivatively (like
Lesniewski or Simons, say)
- and which looks useful for a practical world-organizing computer
Only if a philosopher is an untapped source of such hidden treasure should he
be included. Being thoughtful and wise and influential are not the
qualifying criteria. I included Bolzano and not Brentano based on these
questions, not knowing very much about either one, and relying a little bit
on Peter Simons' analyses. I think of Nino Cocchiarella as a logician, not
an ontologist with a concept-system. I don't understand Petitot's
mathematical approach, but I would like to. Do you mean Harold Somers? If
so, his deep case system is already in my list.
I must also say that my own prejudices are involved. Hegel is plenty
architectonic and ontologically rich, but I don't want him and I consider him
useless for AI even though I've never read a word he wrote.
>If you desire to collect all the proposals advanced in 25 centuries of
>philosophy you will finish with a list of many hundreds of items. I do
>not see the real necessity to do such a huge work.
I agree. Also, I would not be the best person to do it.
>It seems to me that
>some more refined criteria of classification could be more useful.
>In my Ontologia formale /Formal Ontology/ [Genova, Marietti, 1992] --
>starting from some proposals advanced by Perzanowski -- I have
>distinguished the following criteria:
>1. Static vs dynamic ontologies. Static ontologies use external relations
>and presuppose the traditional concept of substance; dynamic ontologies
>use internal relations.
I don't understand "internal relations".
>2. Uniform vs stratified ontologies. Uniform ontologies accept only one
>kind of entity. Stratified ontologies distinguishes different ontological
I expect that almost all useful systems will be stratified. Either
explicitly stratified (as in taxonomies) or implicitly stratified in
compositional systems of primitives (in which the composition rules
automatically induce a stratification of the complex constructions).
>3. Modal vs non-modal ontologies. The difference is obvious.
I suppose, although "modal" has several meanings to me, e.g. all the way
>From just necessary/possible to all propositional attitudes and nested
beliefs and narratives.
>4. Descriptive vs constructive ontologies. The difference is also clear.
I don't know about that. My slogan is "Purpose Dictates Ontology", so I
think I would consider any analytic ontology to be at least a little bit
constructive rather than purely descriptive.
>5. Linguistic vs extra-linguistic ontologies. For linguistic ontologies
>the world and the language have the same deep structure (the substance-
>property opposition mirrors the subject-predicate opposition).
My list consists mainly of extra-linguistic systems; the whole purpose
is to be "conceptual" and extra-linguistic, although language is an extremely
useful guide to concepts. I consider Roget's Thesaurus to be "extra-
linguistic" so I use the term loosely. The Penman Upper Model is supposed to
be entirely linguistically based, but it is so clever in places that I
suspect it to be quite extra-linguistic and partly based on some
introspective philosophical analysis. I'm not too interested in Montague
Grammars, since I don't much care how surface language maps to the conceptual
level. I'm interested in using the conceptual level itself --- a lot of
other people are taking care of the language mapping. I would eliminate the
more linguistic systems that have more to do with language than meaning. No
>Using the above criteria, we can distinguish:
>1. Ontologies of objects and properties. They can be static (ens = thing)
>or dynamic (ens = event). Usually they are stratified (types). The
>stratification can be both uniform or non uniform.
I am very interested to know the difference between "uniform" and "non-
uniform" stratification. What is it? Examples?
>2. Ontologies of strata. As ontologies of relations and functions they
>usually are static, linguistic and uniform. As systemic and
>phenomenological ontologies they are dynamic, extralinguistic and
Again, I am very interested to know what you mean by "ontologies of
strata". This sounds like my other, structural work on knowledge hierarchies
(as in the paper I submitted unsuccessfully to your Ontology Workshop last
>3. Ontologies of events. Obviously, they are dynamic. Usually are stratified.
>4. Combinatorial ontologies. The ontologies with external combinations are
>static, descriptive and uniform. Ontologies with internal combinations are
>dynamic, and stratified.
As in 1. above, I don't understand "internal" versus "external ".
>5. Etc. etc.
>A further proposal that could usefully interfere with the above one consider:
>1. The opposition between general (high level) and specific (domain
This is important. My hope is that specific so-called domain
"ontologies" can have upward links to the appropriate classes in a true,
high-level ontology. Combining disparate ontologies is a vitally important
problem which is now completely unsolved.
>2. The distinction among ontological realms.
>As to (2), I would distinguish three of
>them: ontology of world, of thought and of language.
>It is clear that there are important connections among these three realms.
>For instance, the realm of thought must have some bearer acting in the
>realm of the world. Etc. What matters is the fact that the three realms
>could have different ontological primitives, and could follow different
>sets of (logical) rules.
Yes, absolutely. Different "(logical) rules", yes, but I am skeptical
of the idea of different "logics" for these different realms, as is
constantly proposed in AI; I think there is real (n-order, n-adic classical)
logic applicable to all realms, with kinds of theories specific to each
realm. I don't mix ontology and logic unless I really have to (as in the
case of my "structural ontological dimension" in my aforesaid paper).
>I would now present two more suggestions for an useful classification.
>First. How many subtheories does ontology have? A traditional answer is
>that the theory of categories is a central part of ontology. Today the
>idea that mereology (part-whole theory) is part of ontology seems widely
>accepted. The theory of predication (in Cocchiarella's sense) is also of
>some ontological concern.
> What else?
>Second. Your list makes clear that 'ontology' is used is a wide variety of
>senses and having in mind a wide set of purposes. In order to make easier
>the task to arrive somewhere, it would be of great help to divide the list
>of ontologies according to the different purposes.
Very true. The word "ontology" is a bit abused in my opinion when it is
applied to every little specific system of concepts. We start to hear of
things like the "ontology of Microsoft Word." Doug Skuce, Barry Smith and
Ontek, Inc. have been very critical of the misuse of "ontology". In AI Pat
Hayes and the Stanford crowd are quite responsible for this practice,
although it is understandable since English lacks an apt generic word. I
used "Concept-Systems" rather than "ontologies" since many on my list are not
universal enough to deserve the latter term. The CYC people call the
specific ones "micro-theories".
>A classification of the
>entities of the world is something different from a thesaurus, etc.
I consider Roget's (original) Thesaurus primarily a classification of
the entities of the world and only secondarily a book about words. It is
being formalized as a knowledge hierarchy at the Univ. of Arkansas by the
Sedelows, John Old, Robert Kent and John Brady, and at Technische Hochschule
Darmstadt by Rudolf Wille and Uta Priss. Other related work has appeared in
>I am conscious that my suggestions are perhaps too generic for your
>purposes. In any case I hope to have somewhat contributed to your efforts.
Your suggestions are highly appropriate. My list cries out for better,
principled organization. In fact, classifications (of classifications) such
as yours are generally lacking in the AI field, and I surmise that such a
theory could be of great service in selecting and integrating several
different concept-systems for a particular task. For this reason I'm taking
the liberty of sending a copy of this message to the SRKB email list
(concerned with "shared ontologies" in AI) and to the subjects of some of my
> Roberto Poli, Dept. of Sociology and Social Sciences,
> 26, Verdi Street, I-38100 Trento
>e-mail: email@example.com Voice: (Italy)-461-881403
> firstname.lastname@example.org Fax: (Italy)-461-881440
Yours truly, Fritz Lehmann
4282 Sandburg, Irvine, CA 92715 (714)733-0566 email@example.com
P.S. Can you tell me anything about Sylvio Ceccato? What happened
to him since he invented correlational networks (semantic nets) in the
1950's and 1960's? Is he still alive and active?
ATTACHMENT: CONCEPT-SYSTEMS LIST
[Version 4: Thanks to Piet-Hein Speel, Paul Doudna, Kurt Godden, Nick Youd,
Jim Fulton and especially to Dan Fass for COPIOUS new material. Changes:
RICHENS/MASTERMAN/WILKS is now divided into: RICHENS 100 MINIMALS (he
invented "semantic nets" in 1956), MASTERMAN'S SEMANTIC LATTICES,
PREFERENCE SEMANTICS PRIMITIVES (Wilks), and FASS'S GENUS CLASSIFICATION.
The RELATIONAL LEXICON HIERARCHY becomes EVENS/NUTTER LEXICAL RELATION
HIERARCHY. New total= 147 concept-systems. FL 11/12/93]
4282 Sandburg Way, Irvine, CA 92715 USA (714)733-0566
[occasionally accessed email: firstname.lastname@example.org]
Version 4 of: November 1993
This is to be an informal catalogue of existing concept
catalogues, taxonomies and hierarchies (including high level
"ontologies") for possible use in knowledge representation,
artificial intelligence, simulation, and database integration.
Anybody can contribute (and be acknowledged). Each concept system
is to be described (in a page or less) with some references and other
information. I hope to be inclusive, with emphasis on potentially
machine-readable/usable concept (and relation) hierarchies.
Some people think there is ONE concept system
for the true structure of the world. Others like me
think pragmatic concerns (subjective, mission-determined, or
socially agreed-upon) may dictate different structures. Most
"ontologies" have large areas of near-agreement on concepts
like time, space, individuals, properties, etc. Technical
thesauri deal with more specific subject areas like
accounting, subfields of medicine, or plumbing fixtures.
Philosophical concepts are necessary but controversial; some
concepts like "check-stub" are quite uncontroversial.
The list is now intentionally a grab-bag. It ranges from
universal to fairly problem-specific, informal to formal.
Formalized or not, two aspects of every system are: its
purely mathematical (order) structure, and the meanings of
its components. Notation or language is incidental to both.
The page ordering, for now, is vaguely chronological.
A concept in one system may differ entirely from a concept
with the same name in another system. Please let me know
of ANY OTHER concept-systems you know about.
[I started this list Nov. 20, 1992 for the "PEIRCE project"
(a cooperative international implementation of a Conceptual
Graphs inferential database processing sytem, initiated by
Gerard Ellis and Robert Levinson), with a list of 84
systems beginning with Aristotle's. CODES: (i+)= I now have
a little information; (i-)= I have almost no information; (I)=
I have enough information; (p+)= Page written; (p-)= Page not
written; (nr)= Need references; (nd)= Need descriptive documents;
(c=)= Contributed information, besides me.]
ARISTOTLE'S CATEGORIES (i+,p-,nr)
LLULL'S ARS MAGNA (I,p+)
LEIBNIZ'S ARS COMBINATORIA & CHAR. UNIVERSALIS (I,p+)
LODWYCK'S COMMON WRITING (i+,p-,nd)
DALGARNO'S ARS SIGNORUM (i-,p-,nr,nd)
WILKINS'S PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE (I,p-)
LINNAEUS BIOLOGICAL TAXONOMY (i+,p-,nr)
(ANONYMOUS, c. 1830) UNIVERSAL CHARACTER (I,p-)
CAVE BECK (i-,p-,nr,nd)
KANT'S CATEGORIES (i+,p-,nr,nd)
ROGET'S THESAURUS (I,p-)
PEIRCE'S CATEGORIES (I,p-,nr)
DEWEY DECIMAL, BLISS, UDC & LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (I,p-)
HUSSERL'S ONTOLOGY (i+,p-,nr,nd)
PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA (I,p-,nd)
WHITEHEAD'S PROCESS THEORY (i+,p-,nd)
LIESNIEWSKI'S MEREOLOGY & SO-CALLED ONTOLOGY (i+,p-,nr,nd)
BASIC ENGLISH (I,p-,c=Fass,Thorson)
SEMANTOGRAPHY/BLISSYMBOLICS SYMBOLS (I,p-)
RICHENS'S 100 "SEMANTIC NET" MINIMALS (i+,p-,nr,nd,c=Fass)
CECCATO'S CORRELATION NET PRIMITIVES (i-,p-,nr,nd)
MASTERMAN'S SEMANTIC LATTICES (i+,p-,nr,nd)
LINCOS INTERPLANETARY LANGUAGE (I,p-,c=Godden)
R.M. MARTIN'S SEMIOTIC PRIMITIVES (i+,p-,nr,nd)
COLON FACETED LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION (i+,p-,nd)
THE SYNOPTICON (FOR ENCYC. BRIT. GT BOOKS) (I,p-,c=Salsman)
DEEP CASE SYSTEMS (i+,p-,nd)
LOGLAN/LOJBAN SEMANTIC PRIMITIVE WORD ROOTS (I,p-)
INGARDEN'S ARISTOTLE REVISION (i-,p-,nd)
LAFFAL'S CONCEPT DICTIONARY (I,p-)
LEECH'S SEMANTICS (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=Fass)
SCHANK'S CONCEPTUAL DEPENDENCY THEORY (I,p-)
ACM COMPUTER SCIENCE CLASSIFICATION (i-,p-,nr,nd)
SHUM "SPIRITUAL" NETWORKS (i-,p-,nr,nd)
ANTHROPOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATIONS (i-,p-,nr,nd)
PROPAEDIA OF ENCYLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (I,p-,c=Van Roy)
WEBER RUSSELL'S CATEGORIES OF NOMINALS (i-,p-,nd,c=Fass)
PARKER-RHODES' INFERENTIAL SEMANTICS LATTICES (I,p-)
WIERZBICKA'S LINGUA MENTALIS (i+,p-,nd)
SCHEELE'S ORDNUNG DES WISSENS (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=ISKO)
PATENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=ISKO)
NTIS/DOD/COSATI CLASSIFICATION SCHEME (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=ISKO)
UNESCO THESAURUS (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=ISKO)
BROAD SYSTEM OF ORDERING (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=ISKO)
RUSSIAN MISON "RUBRICATOR" CLASS. CODES (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=ISKO)
BHATTACHARYA'S CLASSAURUS (i-,p-,nr,nd)
AUSTIN'S PRECIS CONCEPT ANALYSIS & INDEXING (i-,p-,nr,nd)
KAMP'S DISCOURSE REPRESENTATION STRUCTURES (i-,p-,nr,nd)
PREFERENCE SEMANTICS PRIMITIVES (I,p-,c=Wilks,Fass)
MILLER/JOHNSON-LAIRD PRIMITIVES (i+,p-,nr,nd,c=Fass)
HAYES'S NAIVE PHYSICS (i+,p-,nr,nd)
LEHNERT'S OBJECT PRIMITIVES (i+,p-,nd,c=Fass)
SCHANK/CARBONELL SOCIAL/POLITICAL ACTS (i+,p-,nd,c=Fass)
EXPLANATORY-COMBINATORY DICTIONARY (MEANING-TEXT) (i+,p-,nd)
MeSH - MEDICAL SUBJECT HEADINGS THESAURUS (i-,p-,nd)
JOLLEY'S HOLOTHEME (I,p-)
ZARRI'S RESEDA ONTOLOGY (I,p-)
LENAT'S AM/EURISKO MATH CATEGORIES (I,p-)
SOWA'S CONCEPTUAL GRAPHS PRIMITIVES (I,p-)
BARWISE/PERRY/DEVLIN SITUATION SEMANTICS (I,p-)
SCHUBERTIAN ("ECO") SUBHIERARCHIES (I,p-)
FICTION CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES (i+,p-,nr,nd,c=ISKO)
WAHLIN'S T.I.M, MANUFACTURING FACETS (i+,p+,nd,c=ISKO)
CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU CLASSIFICATION UK (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=ISKO)
QUALITATIVE PHYSICS PRIMITIVES (i-,p-,nr,nd)
SMITH-MULLIGAN ONTOLOGY (i+,p-,nr,nd)
SIMONS' PART SYSTEM (i-,p-,nr,nd)
SMALLTALK DATA TYPE TREE (i-,p-,nr,nd)
OBJECTIVE-C (NeXTSTEP) DATA TYPE TREE (i-,p-,nr,nd)
BOOCH/RATIONAL OBJECTS HIERARCHIES (i-,p-,nr,nd)
WUESTER'S GENERAL THEORY OF TERMINOLOGY (i+,p+,nd,c=ISKO)
KAB GERMAN LIBRARY CLASSES (K.LEHMANN) (i-,p-,nd,c=ISKO)
GRAESSER'S MULTIPLE CONCEPT HIERARCHIES (i+,p-,nd)
DAHLGREN/McDOWELL NAIVE SEMANTICS (i+,p-,c=Youd)
LONGMAN DICTIONARY CODINGS (INCL. SLATOR) (i+,p-,nr,nd)
LONGMAN LEXICON (THESAURUS) (i-,p-,nr,nd)
BURGER'S THE WORDTREE (I,p-)
FASS'S GENUS CLASSIFICATION (I,p-,nd,c=Fass)
PENMAN UPPER MODEL (I,p-,c=Hovy)
ICONCLASS ART SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION (i+,p-)
SPARCK JONES/BOGURAEV DEEP CASE LIST (I,p-)
COOK ONTOLOGY (i-,p-,nr,nd)
DIXON ONTOLOGY (i-,p-,nr,nd)
VARIOUS WILLE-STYLE FORMAL CONCEPT LATTICES (i+,p-,nr,nd)
RUSSIAN MERONOMY/TAXONOMY (SHREIDER ET AL.) (i-,p-,nr,nd)
SOMERS'S CASE GRID (i+,p-,nd)
CHAFFIN'S RELATION HIERARCHY (i+,p-,nd)
LENAT/GUHA CYC PROJECT (i+,p-,nd)
EPSTEIN AM-BASED GRAPH THEORY HIERARCHY (i-,p-,nd)
MARTY'S SEMIOTIC LATTICES (i-,p-,nr,nd)
GEOGRAPHIC DATABASE CONCEPTS (i-,p-,nr,nd)
MACKWORTH/REITER MAPSEE GEOGRAPHIC MAP AXIOMS (i+.p-,nd)
IRDS DATABASE CATEGORIES (i-,p-,nr,nd)
HOBBS' COMMONSENSE ONTOLOGY (I,p-)
GORANSON SYMMETRIES (i-,p-,nr,nd)
PANSYSTEMS PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC (CHINESE) (i+,p-,nd)
GIUNCHILIA'S ITALIAN PREPOSITIONS (i-,p-,nr,nd)
LILOG ONTOLOGY (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=Speel)
VELARDI'S SEMANTIC LEXICON FOR ITALIAN (i-,p-,nr,nd)
ONTEK, INC.'S ONTOLOGY (i-,p-,nd)
LAKOFF'S CATEGORIES (i+,p-,nd)
HUHNS/STEPHENS RELATION FEATURES (i+,p-,nd)
EDR CONCEPT DICTIONARY (JAPAN) (i-,p-,nr,nd)
ONTOS CONCEPT HIERARCHY (i-,p-,nr,nd)
DOUDNA QUANTIFIER RHOMBIDODECAHEDRON (I,p-,c=Doudna)
SCRAMBLED ROGET (5th Ed.) (i-,p-,nr,nd)
NIRENBURG'S DIONYSUS ONTOLOGY (i-,p-,nr,nd)
SCHUBERT/HWANG EPISODIC LOGIC CATEGORIES (i+,p-,nd)
EVENS/NUTTER LEXICAL RELATION HIERARCHY (i+,p-,nd)
PUSTEJOVSKY'S QUALIA/EVENTS (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=Fass)
FULTON'S SEMANTIC UNIFICATION METAMODEL (i-,p-,c=Fulton)
RANDOM HOUSE WORD MENU CATEGORIES (i-,p-)
PANGLOSS ONTOLOGY BASE (i-,p-,nr,nd)
YALE'S ESPERANTO THESAURUS (i-,p-,nr,nd)
DARPA/ROME PLANNING ONTOLOGY (i-,p-,nr,nd)
CIMOSA BUSINESS ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE MODEL (I,p-)
ICAM MANUFACTURING REFERENCE MODEL (i-,p-,nr,nd)
IWI (GERMAN) MANUFACTURING REFERENCE MODEL (i-,p-,nr,nd)
EDI (ELEC. DATA INTERCH.) BUSINESS COMM STANDARD(i-,p-,nr,nd)
GUARINO CONCEPT/RELATION ONTOLOGY (i+,p-,nd)
SKUCE ONTOLOGY (I,p-,c=Sarris)
PETRIE ONTOLOGIES (i-,p-,nr,nd)
TEPFENHART ONTOLOGY (i-,p-,nd)
G.E. SEMANTIC HIERARCHY & LEXICON (RAU ET AL.) (i-,p-,nr,nd)
PLINIUS CERAMICS ONTOLOGY (I,p-,c=Speel)
MARS' KELVIN MEASUREMENT HIERARCHY (i-,p-,nr,nd,c=Speel)
RANDELL & COHN'S SPATIOTEMPORAL LATTICES (I,p-)
PDES/STEP PRODUCT DESCRIPTION STANDARDS (i+,p-,nr,nd)
HARTLEY'S TIME AND SPACE WORLD (i+,p-,nd)
GRUBER'S QUANTITIES/UNITS ONTOLOGY (i-,p-,nd,c=Gruber)
GENERIC BIBLIOGRAPHY CONCEPT SYSTEM (i-,p-,nd,c=Gruber)
DICK'S CASE-RELATION SYSTEM FOR LEGAL ANALYSIS (I,p-,c=Dick)
HORN'S SUBJECT MATTER CATEGORIES (I,p-,c=Horn,nd)
ARNOPOULOS' SYSTEM UNIFICATION MODEL (SUM) (I,p-,c=ISKO)
TENENBAUM/EIT MANUFACTURING ONTOLOGY (i-,p-,nr,nd)
INTELL. TEXT PROCESSING INC.SEMANTIC LEXICON (i-,p-,nr,nd)
[Hundreds of special-area thesauri are listed in Int. Classification
and Indexing Bibliography (ICIB) published by ISKO, the Int. Soc. for
Knowledge Organization, Woogstr. 36a, D-6000 Frankfurt 50, Germany]
SUGGESTED FORMAT: Brief description, Examples, Formalized?,
Abstract hierarchy structure, Maximum depth, Necessary/sufficient?,
Current authorities/enthusiasts, Machine-readable text?, Machine-
usable structure?, Source, FTP site?, Implemented? References.
I won't release the catalogue until at least half the
entries are written up.